A Surprisingly Smutty Motion to Dismiss
“Not wanting to push her too fast, he rode her easy…. She got hot and wet, but too wet.”
That sounds like something you’d find in the pages of a soft-core porn novel. But no, instead you’ll find it in the non-sexily titled “MarineMax’s Motion To Dismiss Count X of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint,” filed in the Southern District of Florida last week.
Michael Krieger of Clear Marine Ventures has filed a breach of contract suit against boatmaker Brunswick Corporation and a host of other characters — including MarineMax — involved in the maintenance of his boat. MarineMax’s defense attorney, Jack Kallen, decided to have some fun in describing the nature of Krieger’s relationship with his sea vessel.
A footnote claims that the motion “is not intended or meant to titillate, but illuminate the unique relationship that an individual has with a vessel and the special, discriminating and demanding wants and needs of a wealthy individual, who was disappointed and dismayed with his purchase.” But titillate it does. Here’s an excerpt, via the Southern District of Florida Blog:
He first saw the model on line and in a promotional brochure (para. 13-15)…. Her glossy exterior, sculpted body, sophistication, bloodlines, not to mention the accolades of how she could perform, intrigued him, piqued his curiosity (para. 13-15; Exs A. and B. to second amended complaint). Needless to say, he needed to know more, meet her, ride her. He was excited (para. 22).Suitable arrangements were made. Not wanting to push her too fast, he rode her easy (para. 36, 37). With her prominent front pushed up, her rear somewhat down, her performance was somewhat hesitant and resistant. But he was told she was a maiden, that he’d be her first owner (para. 40, 47).
We called the motion’s author, Jack Kallen, to find out why he decided to pen such a smutty motion. We told him we thought it was funny. “I hope the judge does too,” he replied. Read on, after the jump.
Here’s the best bodice-ripping part of the motion:
I. Nature of the ActionHe first saw the model on line and in a promotional brochure (para. 13-15). [Footnote 1: The following is not intended or meant to titillate, but illuminate the unique relationship that an individual has with a vessel and the special, discriminating and demanding wants and needs of a wealthy individual, who was disappointed and dismayed with his purchase; who, in the eyes of the law. stands in the same crocs as the common consumer who was disappointed that the new Kenmore front-loader washer didn’t eliminate the grass stains on the kids’ shorts as was promised and warranted.] Her glossy exterior, sculpted body, sophistication, bloodlines, not to mention the accolades of how she could perform, intrigued him, piqued his curiosity (para. 13-15; Exs A. and B. to second amended complaint). Needless to say, he needed to know more, meet her, ride her. He was excited (para. 22).
Suitable arrangements were made. Not wanting to push her too fast, he rode her easy (para. 36, 37). With her prominent front pushed up, her rear somewhat down, her performance was somewhat hesitant and resistant. But he was told she was a maiden, that he’d be her first owner (para. 40, 47).
He knew that with the right master, the right equipment, and with promises of better things to come, her performance could only get better, would be as promised (para. 45). Michael Krieger was hooked (para. 43).
However, as others before him had learned in dealing with her identical sisters, (para. 60), he would soon come to the realization that in her family, beauty’s only skin deep. She had been born with a fatal defect (para.26).
When he realized that despite the glamourous exterior, her performance was as fleet and nimble as a manatee, his interest in her waned. Discontented and having spent a significant amount of money to buy, outfit, maintain and service her (para. 46, 113), he complained. Krieger was instructed to take her in for extensive surgery to correct her imperfections — not once or twice, but three times (para. 53, 61, 67).
Unfortunately, these procedures, which were designed to decrease her weight and trim, and thereby enhance her performance, failed miserably. She got hot and wet, but too wet. (para. 97, 110, Ex. D to second amended complaint). Just as disturbing, what had at one time been a pleasing, cosmetically acceptable body, had now been transformed into a ghastly and unpleasing specimen.
Alas, once a sea cow, always a sea cow.
Disappointed, dismayed and downhearted (para. 112), Michael Krieger sued to get back the investment he had made in a dream that turned into a nightmare.
That’s one pleasing pleading.
Jack Kallen, the defense attorney who penned it, tells us this is a “serious case with a lot of money involved.” But many memos to dismiss have already been filed in the 10-month-old case, and he thought it was the appropriate time to “change the pace.”
The private practitioner is not a professional smut writer. The Delaware Law grad says he’s never penned anything quite like this in his past 29 years of practice in Miami. But this case called for it. “A boat is a unique entity, and an owner has a special relationship with it,” he told us.
Kallen gets a thumbs up from ATL for the entertainment value of his maiden voyage into quasi-pornographic pleadings. But we doubt this seaman talk will sail with the judge.
To download the full motion, click here.
Alas, once a sea cow, always a sea cow. [Southern District of Florida Blog]
Clear Marine Ventures, Ltd. v. Brunswick Corp.: Motion to Dismiss [PDF]
(44) 
Comments
I hope the judge is a huge bull-dyke.
anyone else find it weird that this dood's law firm lists the spouses for each attorney??? no listing of undergrads, law schools, or bar admissions but instead spouses?
"With her prominent front pushed up, her rear somewhat down, her performance was somewhat hesitant and resistant. But he was told she was a maiden, that he'd be her first owner...."
Oh boy.....
And with that, it's PUSSY FART time!
OMG first!
delaware school of law? what is that widener??? if so we shouldn't be suprised
what a ttt lawyer hth
that's every attys goal right? to get the judge to laugh at your brief? man, the last judge i was in front of was DYING laughing at mine, and then he had the baliff put me in handcuffs and it cost me like three weeks salary to get out of the clink. but man, it was a SWEET brief.
where did you find the firm's website?
This just seems like a terrible, terrible idea.
I went from 6 to midnight mid-paragraph.
Terrible idea? Maybe.
CLM? No he owns his own firm.
I am glad this selfish idiot amused himself.
The only one laughing will be the Plaintiff. Because this moron defense attorney just cost his client the case.
Maybe the worse offense is that he represents the defendant but this only highlights the plaintiff's disappointment. Why build up the plaintiff's relationship with the ship and make the point that if it's a little wrong it's all wrong? It's not just bad taste; it's bad taste to the wrong end.
This guy's been practicing 29 years???
This has maybe a 10 pct chance of turning out well and a 90 pct chance of turning out badly, with no middle ground.
This just in: associates living in fear in a down economy have had their collective sense of humor replaced by anxiety and fear. Get over yourselves - when I clerked my article III judge would have been thoroughly amused by this motion, and it would not have affected his ability to judge on the merits. Clearly the lawyer involved has been something right for the past 29 years.
Something tells me the attorney and his client j/o together.
The problem is: it's *not* funny. Like at all. Like when you're at a dinner and someone tells a joke that is excruciatingly not funny (and then laughs out loud at it, by himself).
The problem is: it's *not* funny. Like at all. Like when you're at a dinner party and someone tells a joke that is excruciatingly not funny (and then laughs out loud at it, by himself).
14: I'm with you, except that, again, all it does is describe the plaintiffs' injury in a brief that argues he hasn't pled an injury. Maybe it's a tounge-in-cheek, back-handed, can-you-believe-this-guy? point, but it still talks about him and his disappointment. Even calls his client's product a "sea cow."
He should be discussing all the wonderful things about the boat or whatever his theory is. Whatever you think about the style, you sure come away going "boy, that guy really overpaid for an overhyped barge." That can't be what he was hoping for.
Guys, he's A defense attorney, not THE defense attorney. His client didn't make the "sea cow" -- his client just tried to fix it. The more he can play up how bad the vessel was before his client got his hands on it, the better off he is.
Yeesh.
Dumb. Really dumb. Seriously. As others have pointed out, this "argument" does not even support his client's position. Rather, the reader is left wondering why this poor chap, who is simply trying to live out erotic fantasies via a sea-going vessel, should be forced to suffer more just to get his "mistress" fixed.
While the argument is horrible, it isn't even the most offensive part of the brief. Surely there are some third-graders in Florida who would be willing to teach the "authors" of this brief how to underline words without putting ghastly lines all over the page. Now, I don't practice in Florida so I must have missed it when Florida courts adopted a standing local rule that gives bonus points for every grammatical, citation, or Bluebook error included in the brief. Good thing that rule exists; this brief needs the bonus points.
19: Fair enough. I'll admit, I glanced over it and missed the distinction. But it still doesn't tell you why the repairmen should be let go. It just makes you feel kind of bad for the guy.
13/18
I never thought I'd be on a boat.
As the owner of a 52' Sundancer I can attest to the fact that hot chicks willingly drape their bikini-clad bodies across nice boats in return for occassionally blowing the Captain's whistle. It's what I call a win-win scenario.
Faaaaaantastic reading. Gosh, I hope the bar questions are like this!
My guess is that the late federal court of appeals judge for whom I clerked, whose last of four wives was one of his clerks, would have found it amusing and ruled on the merits, whatever they may be.
He should have stuck with one subtle line. Instead, it's all overkill. And the author is probably the pound-in-the-ass guy on here.
22: Genius. Sheer Genius.
22: Genius. Sheer Genius.
Defense better hope the Honorable JLK (SD FLA cthse named after him, not posthumously) doesn't decide this one...and based on my personal experience in 11th Cir., I personally hope that Tjoflat, Marcus, Barkett, Fay and a few others don't have to review this filing. It's not like everybody in Miami is just riding around on yachts and surfboards, there are actually a few lawyers around...not that this filing would indicate otherwise. How in bad taste.
It's usually lame when judges write opinions making jokes. But it's ALWAYS lame when the lawyer tries to be funny.
Also, he is a stupid motherfucker to file something like that in a federal court. He might get a pass here just because he's old.
Poorly written (fragments, nonsensical analogies, overkill...), totally improper bluebooking. Meh. Unimpressed.
This guy needs to go read the Grinch Brief, which is pure legal comic genius.
http://www.gesmer.com/upload/download.php?id_files=29
This made me so fucking horny! I'm going to go rub one out now...
Tasteful humor is appreciated by the clerks and judges of the S.D. Fla, based on my personal experience. How Judge Moreno will deal with this is anybody's guess, but I suspect that he won't appreciate having to tiptoe through the minefield of gender politics that this motion raises.
Read footnote 1, idiots:
The following is not intended or meant to titillate, but illuminate the unique relationship
that an individual has with a vessel and the special, discriminating and demanding wants and
needs of a wealthy individual, who was disappointed and dismayed with his purchase; who, in
the eyes of the law. stands in the same crocs as the common consumer who was disappointed
that the new Kenmore front-loader washer didn’t eliminate the grass stains on the kids’ shorts
as was promised and warranted.
Not saying the poetic license is good or well-advised, but no reason to go ga-ga.
The Judge I clerked for would have laughed his ass off in chambers.... then kicked the shit out of this guy in open court.
Also, 31, thanks for the Grinch link. Had never read that. It was brilliant.
My Judge to0 35.
Im all about a little humor, but this goes FAR beyond the bounds of professionalism and humor in good taste.
22: Its a big blue watery road.
22: Its a big blue watery road.
The law has long recognized that boats are sexy. This is boilerplate language from a vessel charter: "she must be in every respect tight, staunch, and strong, and in every way fitted for service."
20 - You're most offended by the "ghastly lines" in the brief? Really?
29 - Impressive. You can name a bunch of district court and appeals court judges in Florida.
Bottom line, the guy clearly enjoys what he does and he works for himself.
Now get back to work you worthless associates. Trumped up reviews are coming next week and you'll get fired from your oh so meaningful existences in BigLaw if you don't put at least 80 on the board for this week (minimum of 320 required for the month of May).
If you can't reach the level of the Grinch brief or the Judge's decision telling counsel they probably write with Crayolas you have failed.
41: Of course, the guy who wrote the Crayolas opinion is now in federal prison and the 5th Circuit just demanded his impeachment, so . . .
I wish I could vomit my brains out after reading this. The double entendres weren't just bad, they were physically PAINFUL to read.
I mean, FUCK. Calling the boat a "maiden"? He would be the first to own "her"? Is this what creepy old men think about instead of reading bad, trashy romance novels?
I hope he gets a dykey feminazi judge in army boots.
42 - 41, here. Of course, Judge Kent is in federal prison because he lied to investigators looking into allegations that he had sexually abused two women, not because he wrote an amusing opinion that called out sloppy lawyering. They are seeking to impeach him in order to deny him a $150K plus salary for the rest of his life. Not exactly the same, is it? So . . .